I was just wondering whether there's any chance Canon might consider upgrading their C100's bit rate to 50 Mbps even if it remains 4:2:0

I'm struggling right now over whether to bite the bullet and finance the purchase of a C300 over 2 years, or instead wait until November to get the far less costly C100. Now I know that I would be losing HD-SDI, Genlock, and the broadcast quality standard 50 Mbps (as well as the C300's 422 color space) by getting the C100.

But is it unrealistic of me to hope that Canon might provide a future firmware upgrade that bumps the C100's bit rate from 24 Mbps to 50 Mbps? I mean if the Panasonic GH3 offers 50 Mbps (even up to 72 Mbps) for only $1,300, why couldn't the $6,500 Canon C100 have that option?

Personally, I could live without Genlock, HD-SDI, even without slow-mo of any kind on the C100 (since I just got the FS700), but I can't understand why the C100 couldn't have a higher bit rate even if it is 4:2:0. I mean would it really kill C300 sales, if the C100 just had the same 4:2:0 GH3 comparable bit rate?

Liam Hall

09-22-2012, 10:26 AM

Yes, that's unrealistic. You can of course buy the C100 and hook it up to an external recorder via HDMI to get an uncompressed video signal.

Nicholas Natteau

09-22-2012, 10:32 AM

Unless someone figures out a way to hack the C100's bit rate like they did on the GH2.

Jim Martin

09-22-2012, 01:33 PM

nope

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

J Davis

09-22-2012, 02:41 PM

AVCHD has a maximum bitrate in its spec. The spec for the codec would have to change

Nicholas Natteau

09-22-2012, 02:50 PM

What's the max bit rate in it's spec? I'm a little confused now.

If that's the case, how come the GH2's AVCHD codec could be hacked up to 176 Mbps?

cowpunk52

09-22-2012, 09:25 PM

What's the max bit rate in it's spec? I'm a little confused now.

If that's the case, how come the GH2's AVCHD codec could be hacked up to 176 Mbps?

AVCHD max bit rate spec is 24Mbps. AVCHD 2.0 max bit rate is 28Mbps, but this is only used for 1080p60 recording. In 1080p24 or 30, it defaults back down to AVCHD 1.0's 24Mbps.

The GH2 codec could go higher because it was hacked. It's a bit like overclocking a computer processor - making it perform beyond specifications at the risk of failure along the pipeline.

Nicholas Natteau

09-22-2012, 10:34 PM

I see, thank you cowpunk52. Maybe I've been just lucky then. Because using a Class 10 card, I never had mishaps shooting at 42 Mbps, then 150, and finally 176Mbps with the GH2. Not that I was ever shooting that long mind you.

The only issue I had was the color temperature changing when pressing record in the GH2. Perhaps because it was hacked, not sure. But this occurred only under artificial lighting, not when shooting in daylight. But thanks for explaining. That was quite helpful.

Matthew B

09-22-2012, 11:08 PM

Unless someone figures out a way to hack the C100's bit rate like they did on the GH2.

There'd be no point. Why would someone try to put an unreliable hack on a camera that you can hook an external recorder to and get a codec equivalent to or better than the 50mbps that's in the C300.

There is no way I would ever trust a hack on a professional shoot.

Yoyodyne

09-22-2012, 11:35 PM

Boy, I don't know if I would finance a camera over 2 years right now...

David W. Jones

09-23-2012, 07:13 AM

Boy, I don't know if I would finance a camera over 2 years right now...

Exactly... As fast as technology is changing, cameras are getting better/cheaper every year. Film cameras we kept for 10 years were replaced by digital cameras we kept for 5 years, which were replaced with even better cameras which we hoped we could use for 3 years, which have been replaced with cameras we change out every year. I no longer purchase what I consider expensive cameras. It just makes no sense to invest in technology at a higher price when it becomes outdated before you have paid off the camera. I now only purchase lower priced cameras which I can quickly pay off, and then rent any higher priced camera which might be needed for a particular shoot.

Tim Nitsch

09-23-2012, 04:08 PM

What about canon upgrading (or someone hacking) the firmware to allow the C100 to shoot 1080p 60fps?

I can totally understand why they reduced/changed the bit rate and codec so that it wouldn't hurt C300 sales, I get that, but not including 60p is just silly IMO.

David W. Jones

09-23-2012, 04:55 PM

Are you doing that much production now which requires 60p?

MarcoPolo

09-23-2012, 07:55 PM

When I look at the specifications of a C100 and compare it to a C300 with a Canon mount, I don't see how the C300 is a $9500 better camera. The really important features used for day-to-day shooting are on the C100. Since they will both output the same uncompressed 8-bit out to an Atamos Ninja, that negates any serious issue over the C100 codec. If any shooting limitations arose where I had to record onboard, I'd make sure the profile is flat, just like when I shoot with a DSLR. The C100 looks like a great value to me.

Tim Nitsch

09-23-2012, 08:20 PM

Are you doing that much production now which requires 60p?

Yes lots of Sports projects.

Nicholas Natteau

09-24-2012, 07:53 AM

What about canon upgrading (or someone hacking) the firmware to allow the C100 to shoot 1080p 60fps?

I can totally understand why they reduced/changed the bit rate and codec so that it wouldn't hurt C300 sales, I get that, but not including 60p is just silly IMO.

That's what I don't understand. Why they did just that...when the GH3 offers 50 to 72 Mbps in a $1,300 camera. If they were concerned about hurting C300 sales: eliminating the HD-SDI port, Genlock, and not having 422 but instead 420 color space made sense. But offering 24 Mbps?

Now I know you can bypass that limitation by using an external recorder via the HDMI port. That's why the decision to limit the bit rate puzzles me even more. By doing it, they haven't prevented C100 users from being stuck with the low bit rate. They've just made it more inconvenient to get there by requiring the external recorder.

So if you wanted to do some run and gun shooting where the C100 would be ideal because of it's auto-focus ability (which C300 and C500 lack), if you want anything higher than 24 Mbps, you'd need to mount that external recorder on top. Cumbersome, IMO. That's why I've already ordered the GH3 and I'm still struggling between the C100 and C300.

David W. Jones

09-24-2012, 09:53 AM

Yes lots of Sports projects.

OH OK, I know people are making a big deal out of shooting 60p, but I have yet to have a broadcast organization or network ask for footage to be delivered in 1080/60p.

Liam Hall

09-24-2012, 10:28 AM

OH OK, I know people are making a big deal out of shooting 60p, but I have yet to have a broadcast organization or network ask for footage to be delivered in 1080/60p.
It's used for slow motion.

David W. Jones

09-24-2012, 11:44 AM

It's used for slow motion.

OK, thought people were talking about shooting native 1080/60p as in the AVCHD 2.0 28mbps spec.

Guess using it for slow-mo slipped my mind as I have been shooting with cameras which already shoot overcranked for slow motion.

Tim Nitsch

09-24-2012, 12:58 PM

OH OK, I know people are making a big deal out of shooting 60p, but I have yet to have a broadcast organization or network ask for footage to be delivered in 1080/60p.

Never said it had to be for broadcast.

Dafilman21

09-24-2012, 01:55 PM

Not having 60p in 6.5K camera is a pure slap in the face imho. I honestly believe that Canon does what it does because it can, people will buy the camera regardless even though I think its overpriced. That being said I am still struggling between the FS700 and the C100 for DOC use. If the C100 did 60p it would make my decision a little bit easier. But now I feel like I shouldn't reward Canon for intentionally crippling a camera and then overcharging for it.

Tim Nitsch

09-24-2012, 02:18 PM

Not having 60p in 6.5K camera is a pure slap in the face imho. I honestly believe that Canon does what it does because it can, people will buy the camera regardless even though I think its overpriced. That being said I am still struggling between the FS700 and the C100 for DOC use. If the C100 did 60p it would make my decision a little bit easier. But now I feel like I shouldn't reward Canon for intentionally crippling a camera and then overcharging for it.

I'm right there with you. I love the slow motion of the FS700 but don't really like its ergonomics, on the other hand, I love the ergonomics of the C100 but hate that doesn't even have 60p.

Dafilman21

09-24-2012, 02:51 PM

It really stinks, I am not asking for 120fps just a measly 60fps, which most of the S35 camcorders in this price range has.

Tim Nitsch

09-24-2012, 03:46 PM

It really stinks, I am not asking for 120fps just a measly 60fps, which most of the S35 camcorders in this price range has.

I've got the little Panasonic TM700 that we use for static sideline shots and it has 1080p 60fps. It's a few years old now but at the time it was like $700. Why a $7000 camera doesn't have 60fps in any resolution at all is beyond me...

Panasonic gets it.
Sony gets is.

Canon apparently doesn't.

Nicholas Natteau

09-24-2012, 05:17 PM

I just got off the phone with Canon and when I asked them whether there was any possibility that the 24 Mbps might be upgraded in a future firmware option, they said the nature of the AVCHD codec didn't make it possible. When I pointed out the GH3's AVCHD 50 Mbps-70 Mbps. They reiterated that the 24 Mbps limit had to be a limitation of the codec. Funny.

In case anyone was wondering. Canon's current EOS Utility is not working properly with OSX but they plan to update it in October. Now I know why the EOS Utility kept crashing in Mountain Lion, every time I turned on my 7D.

David W. Jones

09-24-2012, 05:37 PM

It's like adding a speed governor to a car that is capable of going 170 mph but limiting it to 120.

Tim Nitsch

09-24-2012, 07:54 PM

When I pointed out the GH3's AVCHD 50 Mbps-70 Mbps. They reiterated that the 24 Mbps limit had to be a limitation of the codec. Funny.

Sometimes I wonder what goes on when they are developing a camera like this.
"Lets create an amazing state of the art sensor and put it in a really nice body and to top it off lets toss in an old codec that no one will want! Oh and lets jack up the price a few thousand for our troubles."

That is the one thing I actually like about Red. They wont just shoot themselves in the foot, they'll blow their entire leg off in order to create a good product (ie: Scarlet pretty much making the R1 obsolete)

Dammit Canon if the C100 did look so nice to shoot with I wouldn't even consider it... :D

anatusa

09-25-2012, 05:06 AM

as i understand there is no slow or fast motion at all on c100? does it have interval recording/time laps?

kk5hy

09-25-2012, 07:02 AM

Boy, I don't know if I would finance a camera over 2 years right now...

I just took advantage of the 2 year deal at 0% the reason was straight forward for me. I don't have to outlay $16K of my companies money in one lump. But I can pay it off in 1 year or less if I want.
If the deal is for 0% interest, why not.

coltonokeefe

09-25-2012, 07:33 AM

I just took advantage of the 2 year deal at 0% the reason was straight forward for me. I don't have to outlay $16K of my companies money in one lump. But I can pay it off in 1 year or less if I want.
If the deal is for 0% interest, why not.

Exactly. Financing/Leasing has some major benefits for smaller companies. You're not tying up a large amount of equity, you're able to write off a portion of the monthly payment as a business expense, and if it's at 0% interest then even better.

Getting a newer camera may also get you certain jobs that an older camera wouldn't, also bringing in more money to the company.

Once the camera is paid for in 2 years or less you can always look at selling it for something else if necessary. Ideally the amount of work you had gotten in that 2 year period, combined with the price you sell the camera for, you SHOULD come out ahead.

It's not the best option for everyone, but financing and leasing shouldn't just be written off as a bad idea right off the bat.

Dafilman21

09-25-2012, 12:59 PM

Exactly the camera's ergonomics are quite appealing, the codec and lack of frame rates are not mostly because they are charging 6.5K.

Jim Martin

09-29-2012, 01:48 PM

We had the C100 in here this week.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbsH4xCoUCM

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

anatusa

09-29-2012, 04:25 PM

I just got off the phone with Canon and when I asked them whether there was any possibility that the 24 Mbps might be upgraded in a future firmware option, they said the nature of the AVCHD codec didn't make it possible. When I pointed out the GH3's AVCHD 50 Mbps-70 Mbps. They reiterated that the 24 Mbps limit had to be a limitation of the codec. Funny.

In case anyone was wondering. Canon's current EOS Utility is not working properly with OSX but they plan to update it in October. Now I know why the EOS Utility kept crashing in Mountain Lion, every time I turned on my 7D.

its seems like that you dont really understand what u r talking about! there is no any kind of AVCHD 50-70Mbps in GH3, and probably never will. gh3 uses AVCHD 2.0 what has a max of 28Mbps with 60/50p. its standard. GH3 also uses all i codec up to 72Mbps and its not the same as AVCHD.

My pany af101 has the same AVCHD 1.0 or 1.xx with max around 21Mbps at 25p/30p, there is no 60p yet. but not so long ago pany came up with a payed soft update that gives AF100 - AVCHD 2.0 with max 28Mbps at 60/50p (new cams already has avchd 2.0 standard).

so again there is no AVCHD with 70Mbps, never was , and probably never will, as most likely there will be something like AVCHD 3.0 with more mbps!

of course no one understand why Canon put OLD codec on new and kind of expansive camcorder, as looks like their avchd is 1.xx , why they used it instead of 2.0 - only god knows why....

about 4:2:2 - there will be no 4:2:2 as unfortunately avchd is 4:2:0, so unless they will change the codec nothing will be improved......

Airwolf

09-29-2012, 10:15 PM

Jim, no disrespect to your promo video, but is there something in place that says you can't show us the images that come out of the camera? We all know what the camera looks like, I think the question here is how does it perform. For some reason there seems to be plenty of these promo models floating around, but only one video actually shot on it, which does not showcase it very well.

Nicholas Natteau

09-30-2012, 09:00 AM

its seems like that you dont really understand what u r talking about! there is no any kind of AVCHD 50-70Mbps in GH3, and probably never will. gh3 uses AVCHD 2.0 what has a max of 28Mbps with 60/50p. its standard. GH3 also uses all i codec up to 72Mbps and its not the same as AVCHD.

My pany af101 has the same AVCHD 1.0 or 1.xx with max around 21Mbps at 25p/30p, there is no 60p yet. but not so long ago pany came up with a payed soft update that gives AF100 - AVCHD 2.0 with max 28Mbps at 60/50p (new cams already has avchd 2.0 standard).

so again there is no AVCHD with 70Mbps, never was , and probably never will, as most likely there will be something like AVCHD 3.0 with more mbps!

of course no one understand why Canon put OLD codec on new and kind of expansive camcorder, as looks like their avchd is 1.xx , why they used it instead of 2.0 - only god knows why....

about 4:2:2 - there will be no 4:2:2 as unfortunately avchd is 4:2:0, so unless they will change the codec nothing will be improved......

Anatusa, let's try to keep it friendly. There was no need for that first line.

Yes, I was wrong about the 50-70 Mbps being AVCHD. I see now that this applies to ".mov (H264)". But I assume you're aware that the GH2 once hacked can shoot up to and beyond 176 Mbps AVCHD? So to say that AVCHD can't shoot anything beyond 24 Mbps ignores the many hacks that were developed that have made the GH2 such a phenomenal video tool.

anatusa

09-30-2012, 11:02 AM

Anatusa, let's try to keep it friendly. There was no need for that first line.

Yes, I was wrong about the 50-70 Mbps being AVCHD. I see now that this applies to ".mov (H264)". But I assume you're aware that the GH2 once hacked can shoot up to and beyond 176 Mbps AVCHD? So to say that AVCHD can't shoot anything beyond 24 Mbps ignores the many hacks that were developed that have made the GH2 such a phenomenal video tool.

english is my 2nd language..... so if it sounds rude , i am sorry it was not my intention......

anyway, i think u wrong again - avchd is the industry standard, it is what it is and it will remain this way until they(Pany and Sony i believe) will develop something better, and as soon u can understand it the sooner the question will disappear ....

you told your self the key word - HACKED and its not the standard i am not an expert but i think u ll loose the warranty after installation of that. the reliability of it is most likely questionable, i would never bring something like that to professional job, and canon for sure cant put their signature on something that may or may not work when u need it to. its maybe good for filming cats at home, but its not what u would want to rely on at serious job.

the only thing i dont understand is - why not avchd 2.0? what a hell? - i find it as a slap in the face..... and maybe its what maybe the future update from canon can bring.... but its most like the max that u can dream of!

Nicholas Natteau

09-30-2012, 12:46 PM

I understand your point about the reliability issue. All I can say is that using a Class 10 card I never once had any mishap shooting at 176 Mbps, and I've done it dozens of times over the last year. That's not to say that I would bring my hacked GH2 to a professional shoot.

There are some issues that do occur like changes in color temperature when you hit record on the hacked GH2. But am I worried about voiding my warranty? Not at all. The picture quality you get with the hack is phenomenal for a "consumer" camera that costs less than $1,000. So I have no regrets whatsoever about hacking my GH2.

But now that Panasonic has officially put it's stamp on "50-70 Mbps" for the GH3, there'll be no need to hack it. And it should serve very well as a discreet run-gun camera.

anatusa

09-30-2012, 03:35 PM

I understand your point about the reliability issue. All I can say is that using a Class 10 card I never once had any mishap shooting at 176 Mbps, and I've done it dozens of times over the last year. That's not to say that I would bring my hacked GH2 to a professional shoot.

There are some issues that do occur like changes in color temperature when you hit record on the hacked GH2. But am I worried about voiding my warranty? Not at all. The picture quality you get with the hack is phenomenal for a "consumer" camera that costs less than $1,000. So I have no regrets whatsoever about hacking my GH2.

But now that Panasonic has officially put it's stamp on "50-70 Mbps" for the GH3, there'll be no need to hack it. And it should serve very well as a discreet run-gun camera.

its not the question of that treat - what others do or have? The question was - any chance Canon might upgrade the C100's bitrate to 50Mbps??? and the answer is - NO! why? because there is no such standard currently! pure and simple. Also most likely there will be no significant changes as it may hurt the c300 sales..... but i hope we can hope for avchd 2.0